Our View: Wait for voters to decide on casinos

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled recently that a ballot question to repeal the 2011 law authorizing gaming in Massachusetts may appear on the November ballot, it added even longer odds to an increasingly risky bet for both the commonwealth and casino operators.

Comment

southcoasttoday.com

Writer

Posted Jul. 9, 2014 at 12:01 AM

Posted Jul. 9, 2014 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled recently that a ballot question to repeal the 2011 law authorizing gaming in Massachusetts may appear on the November ballot, it added even longer odds to an increasingly risky bet for both the commonwealth and casino operators.

When it comes to implementing the Massachusetts gaming law, uncertainty has been par for the course. Perhaps that's why it's not surprising that Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby said the commission would continue its current licensing and regulatory process despite the "atmosphere of uncertainty."

But although the commission has become accustomed to rolling through the uncertainty, it may make more sense for the commission to put the brakes on the process until the matter is settled by voters in November. Any further action might open the commonwealth to potential liability. And it seems wasteful to spend state resources on the commission's operations when the future of the gaming law is up in the air.

Attorney General Martha Coakley had previously denied the ballot question, finding it was unconstitutional because it would cause casino developers to lose property without compensation. But the SJC unanimously ruled — in what Coakley deemed a "thoughtful" ruling — that risk is a part of doing business.

"Instead, the possibility of abolition is one of the many foreseeable risks that casinos, slots parlors, and their investors take when they choose to apply for a license and invest in a casino or slots parlor," Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the seven-member court in the unanimous ruling.

Casino operators know that the house always wins, and, in this case, the commonwealth — and its voters — own the table where the casino operators are seated.

The casino entities that have applied for licenses, begun the approval process, and in MGM Springfield's case begun construction, already have a lot invested. But casino proprietors and investors understand that risk is part of the potential windfall. A repeal movement was clearly afoot through the voter initiative mechanism when they made their moves. There was always a risk that the table could close when they were on a roll.

The gaming law seems to be an especially tenuous bet for southeastern Massachusetts, where the goal post has already been moved and the rules changed due to flaws in the law, market uncertainty and the unpredictability of the federal government's position on the Mashpee Wampanoag's land-in-trust status in Taunton.

How fluid is the Region C process in southeastern Massachusetts? Just two days after the referendum ruling, Region C's rules changed again: The licensure schedule was pushed back several months to allow new applicants more time to organize and file.

Until voters have their say in November, both the commonwealth and the casino proprietors may want to back away from a table that seems to have increasingly long odds. Making bets at a time of such uncertainty makes little sense for the commonwealth and the casino entities investing in it.